Father of the Year

Father of the Year Poem by Arley Steinhour 011913 Article by Jack Kinsella

Passing through days, months, and years, I've noticed, times have become deranged, Sanity now prefaced with 'In,' is crying tears, That which was crazy, is now full of "Change."

'The Fox now owns the Hen-house, The Crazies, in charge of Asylum,' Most all work, can be done with a mouse, Nobel's Peace Prize, is Political Alum.

The names, I won't mention, They're mostly well known, I'd end up in detention, If I say more than I've shown.

Read this, or cast away, I just send them on, Time for me to go Pray, So I'll leave you alone,

(With the Father of the Year, This should bring on a Tear): (But, Won't)

"Family Values in the New America Commentary on the News

Saturday, January 19, 2013 Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor Hey, did you hear the one about Bill Clinton being named 'Father of the Year'? Yeah, it goes like this. . . Two guys walk into a bar. . . . What? It isn't a joke? I thought it was a joke. It MUST be a joke. Isn't it? We ARE talking about Chelsea Clinton's dad, aren't we? The same guy that attempted to use his position as Arkansas governor to try to sexually compromise a $7.00 per hour married state employee named Paula Jones? Chelsea was about 11 years old when Clinton went after Paula Jones, and about 14 when Paula Jones filed her sexual harassment suit. Jones refused the governor's advances, but kept the incident to herself until David Brock named her in his 'Troopergate' expose in 1994. In Brock's version, Jones was the aggressor who "offered herself" to the governor. It was then that Jones sued. Clinton used the power of his office to have the lawsuit dismissed and then brought the full weight of the Oval Office down on the woman, challenging her right to sue and destroying her reputation (and her marriage) in the process. Eventually, Clinton settled with Jones for the full amount of the lawsuit but without admitting any wrongdoing. Later, Judge Susan Webber-Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for lying under oath. Ultimately, he barely escaped being impeached and removed from office and was stripped of his law license on the grounds he wasn't ethical or moral enough to be a lawyer! (But sufficiently moral and ethical enough to remain the most popular Democrat the country.) Of course, that was just Paula Jones. Before that was Juanita Broderick, whom Clinton allegedly raped in an Arkansas hotel room in 1978. Clinton denied the charges, but were he not the President of the United States, he would probably have spent the 1990's in the Arkansas State Penitentiary. Among Bill Clinton's other, ahem, peccadilloes was his admitted affair with nude model Jennifer Flowers, his (denied) affair with Elizabeth Ward Gracen, his attempted affair with newly-widowed Kathleen Willey and his Oval Office affair with Monica Lewinsky, who was then almost the same age as Chelsea Clinton. Since leaving the White House, Clinton's philandering ways have become the stuff of legend. It is one of those non-news news stories. And now, we can add the following to the Legend of Bill Clinton: "Clinton was named the "Father of the Year" by the National Father's Day Council on Wednesday. The group selected Clinton for his "profound generosity, leadership and tireless dedication to both his public office and many philanthropic organizations," Dan Orwig, chairman of the National Father's Day Committee, said in the announcement. The award will be presented at a luncheon in June." I suppose that the "National Father's Day Council" is acting on the assumption that by now that Chelsea is thirty-six years old, she has probably gotten over knowing all the details of her father's extra-marital sex life. It still creeps me out. Mary Jo Kopechne would have turned 72 this year. She probably would have gotten married, had kids and grandkids and enjoyed the kind of life most Americans could look forward to back in 1969. But Mary Jo Kopechne only lived to be 28 years old before she went to a party with Senator Edward Kennedy on Chappaquiddick Island off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. Although the official details have been massaged and tweaked and obfuscated, the short story goes like this. Kennedy drove his car off a bridge, but managed to escape the sinking car, abandoning Mary Jo Kopechne to drown. Kennedy didn't report the accident until AFTER the car containing Kopechne's lifeless body was discovered floating in the water. The reason he didn't report it is hotly denied by his apologists, but if he were anyone except Teddy Kennedy, he would have been charged with drunk driving and manslaughter. "It was nine hours before he reported the accident. In the meantime, he walked back to his motel, complained to the manager about a noisy party, took a shower, went to sleep, ordered newspapers when he woke up and spoke to a friend and two lawyers before finally calling the police. Divers later estimated that if he had called them immediately, they would have had time to pull out Mary Jo. She had not drowned, but had survived in an air pocket inside the car - she was asphyxiated only when the oxygen ran out several hours later." Teddy Kennedy lived on for another forty-three years after Mary Jo Kopechne's life was sacrificed to preserve his reputation as a "champion for women's rights" and ultimately earning the title of "Lion of the Senate" by his adoring sycophantic fellow Democrats. During the trial of this year's Father of the Year for serial philandering and perjury, Ted Kennedy fiercely defended Bill Clinton's right to "lie about sex" arguing along with the rest of the Democrats that "everybody lies about sex". "Kennedy voted to acquit Clinton on both charges, saying "Republicans in the House of Representatives, in their partisan vendetta against the President, have wielded the impeachment power in precisely the way the framers rejected, recklessly and without regard for the Constitution or the will of the American people." The will of the American people . . . cheating on your family and lying about it is ok. As long as one is a Democrat. Teddy Kennedy was not merely eulogized, he was practically beatified at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. And let us never forget that fine, upstanding gentleman from North Carolina. John Edwards fathered a child with Rielle Hunter as his wife Elizabeth was losing the battle for her life to cancer. She learned of his philandering shortly before she died and left him. She died six months later. Alone. Exactly eight months and 20 days after Riell Hunter gave birth to Edward's daughter, John Edwards was named "Father of the Year" by the National Father's Day Council. In 2006 the voters of the United States turned control of the US Congress over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. In 2008 they handed the party of Pelosi, Reid, Edwards, Clinton and Kennedy the keys to the Oval Office. In the four years to follow, the welfare rolls of the United States almost doubled while the Democrats claimed to take the moral high ground in preserving the family and actually claiming to be the party of family values. In an America in which Teddy Kennedy can champion women's rights and John Edwards and Bill Clinton can claim the title of Father of the Year, it doesn't seem that far a stretch to claim putting half the country on welfare advances Democratic family values. Indeed, they can even claim Biblical values: ". . . lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof . . ." (2nd Timothy 3:2-5) Hey, they ARE values. And they ARE in the Bible. So the Democrats are the very example of Biblical values. "If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?" - (The Mad Hatter from Lewis Caroll's "Through the Looking Glass)

Bill Clinton and John Edwards deserved to be named Father of the Year. Barack Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize. You see?"

Thank you, Geezer, I had never seen that list, and wow, is it a long one. But then, I was passing on an article about 'Father of the Year' awards, not 'Priests Bound for Hell' awards. Both of which, I pray would be as repugnant to you as are with me.

I have never been a Priest, so have no expertise in their motivations and behavior, but, I presume, you as well as I have had some experience in being a Biological Father, and further presume, we, both, served in the position of 'father' to our best ability, and worth of emulation. I won't mention the 'apples and oranges' comparative, pro and con, aspects between Clergy and Politician, nor the fact that I was addressing the world at large in my prose. What you offer, does, for sure, IMO, strengthen what I address, the insanity of 'Right' being 'Wrong,' and vise-a-verse.

I am sorry that you feel I wear blinders, I presume, because I don't have your standards, nor mentality, of proper behavior and thought. Oh, well, I wasn't really trying to do that, only offer food for thought, and, I guess, I did that, or your wouldn't have tried to help me out, so to speak.

Be well, and Keep the Watch, Redemption does draw nigh.

-- Posted by Navyblue on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 12:03 PM

Or...about these great dads? Here is some "food for thought for you", why do so many republicans who get elected in part for their opposition to gay people, turn out to be gay themselves?

Thank you for your input, Benevolus. I was expecting you to provide me with information, and also outside the focus offered, but I now seem to have an excellent portfolio, of 'Bad fathers' on both sides of the Political spectrum, plus Priestly Bad Fathers.

If you all want to further discuss, please do, but I offered the bit of poetry, and the article, for info to ponder, (personality shredding optional).

Have a nice day.

-- Posted by Navyblue on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 1:22 PM

You are most welcome, Navy. Glad to be of service. I hope your next poem points out the problems with Conservatism. That would be very interesting.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 3:27 PM

It would be very short poem, since Conservatism has no faults.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 10:46 PM

Yes. I am certain that you are convinced of this. No surprise coming from you.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 12:27 AM

Well, list them.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 5:29 AM

Dear Dear Benevolus, after reading your comment, above, to CPB (who said rightly, mostly, IMO), the very next email I viewed, I believe was a word for your heart:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14

If you could find it in your heart to accept the sacrifice Jesus made, to Redeem you from the 'price of Sin,' you might be able to understand His word, and know His Love. We will pray you see your need for Jesus' Blessing, until the need is no longer needed, so to speak.

Baruch Atah (blind deposit, until true)

-- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:10 AM

CPB,

One problem underlying Conservatism is the blind faith that replacing government with free-market forces is the solution to everything. Reality and history shows us that the free-market can be just as ineffectual, totalitarian, harmful, etc., as any government. The difference is 'we the people' cannot elect CEO's.

Another failing of Conservatism is that in practice, the beneficiaries of conservative policies are very often the wealthy families and corporate executives who bankrolled the Republican Party in the first place.

Which brings me to another failing. Conservatism is NOT in-keeping with Biblical principles. In fact, it is at odds with much of what Jesus taught. This is not a problem per se, but Conservatives often hide behind Jesus while ignoring what he taught about the meek and poor.

Conservatism is by its very nature is inflexible, and thus, the philosophy has a difficult time adjusting to new circumstances. This is why Conservative leaders met this weekend to try to figure out (among other things) how they can better market Conservatism to women, Latinos, Blacks, and Asians. What they fail to understand is that generally speaking these groups tend to fundamentally disagree with the core principles of Conservatism, but Conservative leaders are convinced that its a marketing issue, not a philosophical issue. This failure will cause the rift between women and minorities and Conservatives to grow ever larger.

But the largest problem with Conservatism is that it is a myth. Whenever a "Conservative" gets elected, they are spend-crazy, they expand and over-reach government, avert the Constitution, engage in corruption and illegal policies, they lie to the American public...just like any other group of politicians.Then we hear 'well they aren't real Conservatives'. But the thing is, there never has been a 'real Conservative' because like unicorns or the Easter Bunny, 'real Conservatism' is a myth.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 12:39 PM

Navy,

Thanks for your concern. Sincerely. But I have to say, it is unnecessary. I understand that converting you to reasonableness, rationality, and logic is a losing endeavor on my part...you might save yourself some time by understanding that converting me to any faith, irrationality, and/or an illogical religion is equally unlikely.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 12:43 PM

No Benevolus, you missed it. Conservatism begins with the individual, striving to do the best they can, as opposed to artificially lifting the non-efforts of those who don't in the name of equality.

Conservatives strive to make the best and moral decisions that affect their lives today, knowing that these choices allow their futures to take care of itself, as opposed to those who absolve themselves of the responsibity and look to the equalizing forces of a central figure.

Conservatives believe work should be rewarded. Not only for themselves, but those who work for them. This is the free market enterprise thinking of conservatism. Those willing to put in the dedication and work to earn a college degree, make the effort to learn a trade and do the best they can at work, are rewarded for their efforts, as opposed to overpaying those who don't.

Conservatives obey the laws and live within them, as opposed to bending the laws to suit themselves. Conservatives do believe in traditional marriage because history has proven it to be the best for the life of a child. Conservatives do not believe that abortion is a solution, but rather a failure.

Conservatives believe in freely giving much more of themselves and their resources to the poor and needy, as opposed to the rest of the world. There is no hiding that fact.

Of course, we, just like the rest of the world, are subject to the sin of greed, as in the lust for money and power. Politics seems to bring that out in all good people regardless which side they believe. Still, Jesus saves.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:52 PM

You have perfectly constructed the myth of the conservative. This conservative you speak must live with Sasquatch, because even though wild-eyed believers insist that he is real, nobody has ever actually documented the person you describe.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:57 PM

We're here...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 6:30 PM

Dishonestly so...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 7:04 PM

CPB

How does your definition of Conservatism fit in with the various Political Groups often referred to as the Far Right? Are there distinct differences and variations of ideology which produces a sort of demarcation line - so clear to the observer that identifying those with true Conservative values is blatantly apparent? Or are there just different levels of Conservatism or part time Conservatism?

I have included a link to a recent study by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point for your review. It is titled - "Challenges from the Sidelines, Understanding Americas Violent Far-Right" -.

I think it may be that he simply doesn't know if there is a difference between "far right" Conservatism and mainstream Conservatism, or how to answer as to whether or not they are distinct philosophies at all.